Richard Sweeting, the defendant, is a young man who lives in the Keighley region and is a citizen of the United Kingdom.
In addition to three charges of theft from a moving object, the defendant is accused of possessing a class A drug and harboring thoughts of supplying a class A drug.
The suspect has a criminal history dating back ten years, during which time he was accused of numerous offenses. In June 2012 he was charged with the breach of ABH supervision and the court gave orders for two-year supervision. In August 2015, the defendant was charged in the Bradford Magistrates’ Court with Assault under the penal code and was later on conditionally discharged. Lastly in December 2016, in the Leeds Magistrates’ the defendant was charged with possession of cannabis and was penalized by the court with a fine of 50 euros.
ISSUES.
There is one issue in this application;
Eligibility of the defendant in regards of the bail application.
FACTS.
It is submitted that the defendant was arrested at night by two undercover policemen who were conducting a sting operation.
We submit that from the policemen’s record of events, the defendant conspired with another in the sale of crack cocaine and heroin which is illegal.
The policemen were able to identify the defendant despite their limited contact with him since they had recorded his description in their first encounter with Richard Sweeting and the notes recorded were used for identification in the second encounter.
We further submit that following the arrest, a search was conducted on the defendant’s residence and he was found in possession of a small bundle of business cards with names and phone numbers believed to be the dealer’s card. The defendant’s mobile phone was seized by the police for analysis.
There is real evidence in the form of CCTV footage, which though not clear shows an individual resembling the defendant. The CCTV footage lacks an audio.
The defendant denied being the individual on the video and therefore the prosecution is put to strict proof thereof.
LAW.
The right to bail has been provided under section 4 of the Bail Act 1976, United Kingdom on each occasion that a person is accused of an offence or remanded after conviction as long as none of the exceptions to the right to bail apply. The objection to the bail application made by the defendant is based on the following grounds which having read the remand sheet given by the police I find justifiable;
The defendant did not willfully submit to the law or surrender but was instead arrested and therefore he is a flight risk in the incidence the court grants bail.
If the court grants bail, then there is a high chance of the defendant obstructing the course of justice and interfering with the proposed witnesses having a previous criminal record. Part I Schedule I of the Bail Act 1976, section 2C provides for the same and gives it as an exception to the right to bail.
The court shall be able to enhance the defendant’s own protection and welfare by keeping him in custody considering the weight of the offences procured in this situation. Part I Schedule I of the Bail Act 1976, section 3 provides for the defendant’s protection and welfare as an exception to the right to bail especially considering the fact that the defendant is a young person, which under the Act is an important consideration.
The nature and the seriousness of the offences allegedly committed and the eventual repercussions of these offences do not encourage the courts to grant bail. Part I Schedule I of the Bail Act 1976 ( Paragraphs 6A to 6C) provides that in certain parts of the country, adult drug users or any other offences that is drug related fall within the exceptions to the grant of bail. The offenders may have been required by the court to undergo drug testing but they failed to comply with that requirement.
The defendant has a previous criminal record thus alluding to his character which implicates on the defendant being an individual who will defy rules given on being granted bail thereby absconding.
From the submissions it is clear that there is strong compelling evidence against the defendant in this case including eyewitnesses, self-incriminating evidence and real evidence, all these alluding to the guiltiness of the defendant and as such not fit for bail.
We submit that the court should have regard to the overriding objective in this application. The court should have consideration to the interests of the defendant. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules is to ensure that courts and tribunals proceedings are conducted in a fair, efficient and quick manner. The court has the responsibility of ensuring that the interests of the parties and those of the general public at large are upheld.
Conclusion.
We submit to the court that in order for the defendant to be granted his bail application, he should satisfy the court that the granting of such orders would be in his interest and would not prejudice the interest of the public. The defendant should be able to disprove the grounds given by the prosecution as reasons for the defendant not being granted bail and show the court these grounds do not hold water. From the evidence adduced by the police in collaboration with the prosecution, this is highly unlikely.
The application for bail put forth by the defendant should be disallowed as this would be in the interest and pursuance of justice and would indirectly serve as a preventive cure for crimes of a similar nature.
(CPS PROSECUTOR)
AUGUST 20XX.
WORD COUNT: 999.
